Domestic violence case file
attrition analysis: A five-nation
study and comparative analysis
prepared for
Cook Islands Police Service, Kiribati Police Service,
Samoan Police Service, Tongan Police Service and
Vanuatu Police Service
and
New Zealand Police, Pacific Prevention of Domestic
Violence Programme
by
Natalie Gregory and Dr Michael Roguski
30 October 2014
Contents
1
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ iii
2
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
3
Approach......................................................................................................................... 3
4
Victim and Perpetrator Characteristics ............................................................................ 6
5
Offence Characteristics ................................................................................................. 15
6
Police Investigation and Prosecution Processes ........................................................... 19
7
Charges, Court Proceedings and Outcomes ................................................................. 24
8
Case Summary and Attrition.......................................................................................... 32
9
Operational considerations ............................................................................................ 37
10
References.................................................................................................................. 39
11
Appendix 1: Proposed Coding Frame.......................................................................... 40
12
Appendix 2: Data collection form ................................................................................. 41
13
Appendix 3: Summary of attrition in the five nations .................................................... 48
14
Appendix 4: Mapping of case file process in the five nations ....................................... 54
ii
1 Executive Summary
The Pacific Prevention of Domestic Violence Programme commissioned Kaitiaki Research
and Evaluation (Kaitiaki) to conduct a case file attrition analysis across five Pacific nations
(Cook Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu). Attrition is the process by which
domestic violence cases reported to the police are discontinued, and thus fail to reach trial
and / or result in a conviction (Lovett & Kelly, 2009, p.17).
A case file attrition analysis provides an important indication of police and wider justicerelated practices across different stages of a domestic violence investigation, from the report
of the complaint to the outcome of case and also provides an opportunity to identify points of
attrition. The current case file attrition analysis aimed to:

explore the profile of both victims and perpetrators / suspects and their relationships to
one another;

explore characteristics of domestic violence cases (for example whether a weapon was
involved and where the incident occurred);

provide information surrounding the particulars of the police investigation of domestic
violence cases;

identify why and cases were withdrawn and by whom; and,

identify the attrition rates in domestic violence cases across three different stages of
inquiry (Police, Prosecution and Court).
The case file attrition analysis also provided an opportunity to map the case file process in
each nation.
Approach
The case file attrition analysis employed a quantitative approach. Data was collected from
domestic violence case files from the year 2012. The case file attrition analysis took place in
the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu during August and September 2014.
A coding framework and data collection form were developed and informed by the rape
attrition research conducted by Lovett and Kelly (2009) and Lievore (2004) (see Appendix
1).
The form included 48 open and closed-ended questions that addressed the following areas:

victim characteristics;

suspect / offender characteristics;

relationship between the victim and suspect / offender;

case characteristics;

police investigation and charges;

court proceedings; and,

case summary and outcome.
It was envisaged that a sample of 100 domestic violence case files from the 2012 calendar
year (1 January 2012 – 31 December 2012) would be randomly selected from the total
number of domestic violence files in each nation that met the below criteria:
iii
1.
cases were reported between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2012 and have since
been finalised either through the courts or by discontinuance;
2.
victims were adults over the age of 18 years old;
3.
defendants or perpetrators were or would have been tried in the adult court system or
were over the age of 18 at the time of the offence; and,
4.
the primary charge was domestic violence-related.
However, due to issues with the organisation of the filing system across the nations the
random selection of 100 files was not possible. While 100 files were located in Kiribati, in
the other nations this number was not achieved. The samples in for all five nations were:

Cook Islands, n=55;

Kiribati, n=100;

Samoa, n=31;

Tonga, n=55; and,

Vanuatu, n=23.
The data collection form contained both close-ended questions and open-ended questions.
Descriptive analyses (simple frequency counts and percentages) were produced for the case
file data from each nation.
Limitations
Due to the small sample sizes in the Cook Islands, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu the results
can also not be generalised to all domestic violence cases in each nation. The amount of
data missing from files was also a limitation of this study and an obstacle to finding
meaningful trends (especially with the data collected from Kiribati).
Victim and perpetrator / suspect characteristics
Females were overwhelmingly the victims of the domestic violence incidents reported to
police across all nations and the perpetrator / suspects were predominantly male. The ages
of the victims and perpetrators / suspects across all nations ranged from 18 to 94. The
median age range of victims ranged between 27 years in Tonga and 37 years in Kiribati and
the median age range of perpetrators / suspects ranged from 28 years in Kiribati and 35
years in the Cook Islands. Across all the five nations the vast majority of the victims and
perpetrators came from that nation. Findings relating to employment indicated that
unemployment was high amongst victims, especially in Samoa and Tonga, in contrast the
proportion of perpetrators / suspects employed was much higher when compared to victims.1
The majority of both victims and perpetrator / suspects were married in Kiribati, Tonga,
Samoa and Vanuatu; however, in the Cook Islands more victims were living in defacto
relationships.
Alcohol use by the perpetrator / suspect at the time of the incident was prevalent in the Cook
Islands and Kiribati, with use by the victim in the Cook Islands also more common than in
the other five nations. With the exception of Samoa, in all other nations information
1
The exception is Kiribati, where unemployment findings were high for both victims and
perpetrators / suspects due to a lack of available work in the nation.
iv
pertaining to the perpetrator / suspect’s previous convictions was also not always present in
domestic violence case files.2
The findings in regards to victim and perpetrator / suspect characteristics supports gendered
nature of domestic violence across the five nations. The vast majority of victims of domestic
violence are women, which highlights the notion that gender is a significant risk factor to
experiencing domestic violence. Across all five nations, previous research conducted by
PPDVP has highlighted the strong patriarchal nature culture and the subordinate position
that women hold in society. In the majority of the cases analysed across the nations, the
perpetrator / suspect was male which is reflective of the secondary status that women have
and the culturally accepted patriarchal right to punish one’s wife or female family members.
The secondary status of women is also reflected in the employment status findings,
especially in Kiribati, Samoa and Tonga, where the majority of victims were female and most
of the victims were unemployed.
The relationship between the victim and perpetrator / suspect were interesting, especially as
in the majority of cases analysed in Kiribati and Samoa the perpetrator / suspect was not the
current partner, but a family member of the victim. This finding encapsulates the need to
acknowledge the broader definition of family violence, and highlights the indiscriminate
nature of family violence.
Alcohol as a driver of domestic violence is a major issue, especially in relation to the findings
in Kiribati and the Cook Islands. Alcohol and drug treatment facilities are either non-existent
or vastly under-resourced across the Pacific, however, due to the high number of domestic
violence incidents in which alcohol is a factor, the link between violence and alcohol needs
to acknowledged and addressed. 3
Offence characteristics
The majority of cases across almost all nations involved a physical assault, with the
exception of Kiribati in which non-physical incidents were much more prevalent. Sexual
violence was more common in Vanuatu. Low rates of victim injury were recorded in the
Cook Islands and Kiribati, however injury was much more common in the other nations. The
use of weapons in the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Samoa or Tonga was rare, in contrast weapons
were used in over a third of incidents in Vanuatu. Across all nations in the overwhelming
majority of cases the domestic violence incident occurred at the home of the victim. There
was a great deal of diversity amongst the nations in regards to when the domestic violence
incident was reported. Encouragingly in the Cook Islands and Kiribati most incidents were
reported to the police at the time of the offence. In the three remaining nations post-incident
reporting was more common.
The prevalence of physical violence and victim injury in the majority of nations highlights the
serious nature of the complaints reported to police. It was surprising that weapon use was
not more commonly reported in Kiribati, as previous research conducted by PPDVP had
indicated that the use of weapons in domestic violence incidents occurred more frequently
than the findings would suggest. This could have resulted from the majority of incidents
examined being non-physical or could perhaps indicate that weapon use is not universally
2
Criminal history information is not held by the police and the responsibility of ensuring the criminal
history of a suspect is included in the file does not lie with the police. It is the responsibility of the
prosecutor or court to ensure this information is present.
3
See Roguski, M. & Gregory, N. (2014). Cook Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu, Police
Knowledge and Practice: Qualitative Component. Wellington: NZ Police.
v
recorded in cases or statements taken by police from victims, perpetrators / suspects or
witnesses are not in-depth enough.
While it would ideal to see all domestic violence cases reported to the police at the time of
the incident, numerous factors impact on the ability of victims or witnesses to report an
offence immediately. An example of such factors include public knowledge of a lack of
resources available to police including vehicles, remoteness of villages, lack of access to
telephones and in some nations, according to police and other key stakeholders, there is a
preference to report directly to domestic violence teams / units at the station. The last point
is of concern, and indicates that some victims do not feel confident that all police will be fully
responsive at the time of the incident. This highlights the need for all police to receive
gender sensitivity and empathy-centred training to enable them to deal with domestic
violence call-outs in a manner that reflects best practice.
Police investigation and prosecution processes
The files were analysed to review police investigation processes associated with domestic
violence cases.
Across all nations the victim was routinely interviewed. In contrast, the interviewing of the
perpetrator / suspect did not occur universally, and this is of concern as the perpetrator /
suspect statement forms an important part of the police domestic violence case. Similarly,
interviews with witnesses (including police who attend the incident) form an expected part of
the investigation of a domestic violence incident, however, with the exception of Vanuatu,
this did not widely occur in numerous cases in the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Samoa and Tonga.
Forensic scene examinations were also not evident in the case files examined in all five
nations. In the majority of cases analysed in the Cook Islands, Samoa and Tonga the
perpetrator / suspect was arrested; however in, in Kiribati and Vanuatu arrest rates were
lower.
In the majority of cases, across the five nations, charges were laid.4 In the Cook Islands,
Kiribati, Tonga and Vanuatu there were several reasons for charges not being laid and these
included:

victim withdrawal;

insufficient evidence;

the case reaching its statute of limitation ;

a lack of victim cooperation into the investigation;

the incident was reported as minor;

alternative action was deemed more appropriate, such as peace settlements and
counselling;

the couple were warned at the scene;

the victim did not want to press charges;

either the victim and / or suspect could not be located following the incident; and,

a traditional reconciliation occurred between the couple; and,
4
Due to the Samoan sample wholly comprising of files that were prosecuted, all of the cases
examined from Samoa resulted in charges being laid.
vi

the victim did not cooperate with the police investigation.
Of great concern was the police decision not to charge as an incident was deemed to be
minor. The seriousness of an incident is highly subjective and it is necessary to treat all
instances as a criminal act removing the dangers surrounding subjective judgements of
minor and severe cases of domestic violence.
In the Cook Islands, Samoa and Vanuatu when charges were laid in a case, the case was
subsequently referred for trial. In Tonga two cases did not make it court following charges
being laid and in Kiribati 24 cases were not referred to the courts. While in a high number of
cases in Kiribati it was no known why the case was not referred to court, in six cases the
victim withdrew and in seven cases there was insufficient evidence.
The high number of victim withdrawals, especially in Kiribati and Vanuatu, indicates that
police have a mixed understanding of complaint withdrawal processes, as all nations police
force’s have no-drop policies in regards to domestic violence cases and all matter must
proceed to court. Victim withdrawals also negatively impact on police responsiveness, as
previous research by PPDVP has indicated that victim withdrawals were perceived to waste
police time and resources and, as a consequence, had a negative effect of creating
antipathy towards domestic violence cases and victims. Also of concern were incidences of
cases not proceeding due to insufficient evidence. General observations of files in all
nations highlighted the brevity of statements taken by police and the lack of additional
evidence gathered throughout the investigative process. A decision not to prosecute due to
a lack of evidence largely reflects on the inadequate investigation and highlights the need for
further training in this area.
Charges, court proceedings and outcomes
Due to the different judicial systems in each nation the charges laid in the domestic violence
cases examined and information pertaining to the level of court the case was heard in are
presented separately below. It should be noted that across all five nations charge
negotiations by the police, prosecution or judicial officer did not occur in any of the cases
analysed.
Cook Islands
The charge of assault on a female was the most frequent charge laid by police in 28 cases
that were referred to court, with the charge of common assault laid in one case. All cases
reviewed were heard by a Justice of the Peace in the High Court.
Kiribati
In the 49 Kiribati cases referred for trial a range of charges were laid and in ten cases the
police laid multiple charges. Of note, the most frequent charge laid was common nuisance
and common assault. All cases were heard in the Magistrate’s Court. It should be
highlighted that police who were assisting with the translation of the files in Kiribati noted that
based on the information available in the file that incorrect charges had been laid in multiple
cases. This highlights a lack of police knowledge in regards to domestic violence charges
and indicates a need for prosecutions and supervisor training.
Samoa
In Samoa, the court heard 31 cases and there were numerous types of charges laid against
perpetrators. The most common charges included common assault, insulting words, actual
bodily harm and threatening words. Five of the cases were heard at the Fa’amasino
vii
Fesoasoani Court, 21 were heard at the District Court and five cases were heard at the
Supreme Court.
Tonga
Almost all of the cases that were prosecuted in Tonga were heard in the Magistrate’s Court
and the majority of perpetrators / suspects were charged with common assault.
Vanuatu
Of the eight cases that were prosecuted in Vanuatu, five were heard in the Magistrate’s
Court and the remaining three were heard in the Supreme Court. Four cases included the
charge of domestic violence, another four included the charge of intentional assault (50%)
and two cases involved the charge of sexual intercourse without consent. In addition, one
charge of incest was laid (13%). There was also one charge of act of indecency (13%) and
one charge of damage to property (13%).
Outcomes and punishment
In the Cook Islands and Tonga in the majority of cases the perpetrator / suspect pleaded
guilty at court. Guilty pleas were also common in Kiribati and Vanuatu. Police assisting with
the file analysis noted that the willingness of victim’s to plead guilty to their offences was
linked to the perception that even if they admitted their guilt they would not be punished
severely as domestic violence offences were not treated seriously by the court. Victim
withdrawals at court were also a frequent outcome in Kiribati and Samoa. The dismissal of
domestic violence cases due to withdrawals at court are a major concern and highlights the
possibility that judicial decision-makers have an inadequate understanding of the dynamics
surrounding domestic violence.5 Previous research by PPDVP has indicated that external
pressures are often placed on victims to withdraw complaints due economic stress and / or
pressure from family, neighbours, friends and / or the church and some withdrawals may be
have been inappropriately granted due to insufficient knowledge of domestic violence.
Across the nations a range of punishments were handed down to perpetrators convicted of
domestic violence related offences. Across the nations differing forms of probation or
suspended sentences were common, as were fines. Imprisonment was not a common
penalty for domestic violence cases and only one custodial sentence was handed down in
Kiribati and Samoa, in Tonga five cases resulted in imprisonment and in Vanuatu a custodial
sentence was the punishment in two cases. The cases that received custodial sentences
were generally more serious in nature, however, many of the charges that were laid in the
domestic violence cases analysed in all five nations the available penalty for that charge
included a term of imprisonment. However, the findings from the case analysis would
indicate that a custodial sentence is not a common form of punishment for domestic violence
offences.
The case files were analysed to find out how long it took from the date of the initial report of
the complaint to the final court hearing ranged from two days in the Cook Islands and Kiribati
to 485 days in Vanuatu. The mean number of days that victims had to wait from the date of
5
The Pacific Judicial Development Programme is currently running workshops in a number of
Pacific Islands to educate judiciary about the dynamics of domestic violence. This training is an
ideal platform from which to address this issue.
viii
the initial complaint to the final court hearing ranged from 9.6 days in the Cook Islands to
305.8 in Vanuatu.
Due to a lack of information in the files, it was not entirely clear if hold-ups in the processing
of cases for prosecution occurred at the police or court level. However the inordinate
amount of time some victims have to wait until their case is heard in the court is of major
concern and in Vanuatu a number of victims withdrew cases more than 12 months are laying
the complaint. This finding would suggest that there is a lack of sufficient monitoring of the
case file progression at both the police prosecution and court level. While delays at the
court-end of the process are generally out of police control, further training to ensure that all
officers are clear about processes pertaining to the prosecution of domestic violence cases
could help improve the length of time that victim’s have to wait for their cases to be resolved.
Case summary and attrition
Not all domestic violence cases analysed resulted in charges being laid and the matter
proceeding to court. As all the cases that were located in Samoa were incidents that had
been prosecuted, all files analysed here resulted in the procession of the case to court. In
Tonga 89% of the files located resulted in a court date, in the Cook Islands in approximately
half of the cases charges were laid and the matter proceeded to court. However, in Kiribati
and Vanuatu the majority of cases did not make it to court and only 37% (n=37) of cases in
Kiribati and 35% of cases in Vanuatu (n=8) resulted in charges and the case proceeding to
court. Across all five nations, there were various outcomes for the remaining cases that did
not proceed to court. The other outcomes are presented in the following table:
Table 1: Outcome of Domestic Violence Incidents That Did Not Proceed to Court Across Five
Nations
Participating country
Outcome
Cook
Islands
Kiribati
Samoa
Tonga
Vanuatu
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Referred to Women’s
Centre / Counselling
13
24%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Other
11
20%
38
38%
0
0%
5
9%
15
65%
Unknown
4
7%
25
25%
0
0%
1
Note: Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.
2%
0
0%
In the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Tonga and Vanuatu a number of cases resulted in an ‘other’
action being taken by police. These other actions included

no action following the closure of the case (most common);

police follow-up with victim and perpetrator / suspect (only in the Cook Islands); and

a peace settlement between the couple (only in the Cook Islands).
Attrition rates were high across most of the nations, with the exception of Tonga. In the
Cook Islands an attrition rate of 46% was calculated, with the same proportion of cases
resulting in a conviction. In Kiribati, the conviction rate was much lower; with only 15% of
analysed cases resulting in a conviction and an attrition rate of 54% was calculated.
However, it should be noted that in 31% of the cases in Kiribati the outcome was unknown.
In Samoa an attrition rate of 48% and a conviction rate of 52% was calculated. Of the
domestic violence cases analysed from Tonga, the attrition rate was 26% with 71% of cases
ix
resulting in a conviction. In Vanuatu the attrition rate was 78%, with only 22% of cases
resulting in a conviction.
The individual responsible for the case withdrawal is presented in the below table. In the
majority of domestic violence cases analysed in Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu the
victim withdrew the case. In the Cook Islands withdrawal of cases by the police was more
common. The prevalence of victim withdrawal at the police stage of the process highlights
the need for the enforcement of the no-drop policy by police. At the judicial stage, the
acceptance of a victim withdrawal, as discussed earlier, indicates the need for court officials
to gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence.
Table 2: Who Withdrew the Domestic Violence Case Across Five Nations
Participating country
Variable
Cook
Islands
Kiribati
Samoa
Tonga
Vanuatu
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Victim
4
16%
35
65%
14
93%
9
64%
10
56%
Police
16
64%
2
4%
0
0%
2
14%
5
28%
Prosecutor
4
16%
14
26%
0
0%
0
0%
2
11%
Judge /
Magistrate
0
0%
3
6%
1
7%
3
21%
0
0%
Other judicial
officer
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Unknown
1
4%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
6%
Operational considerations
Case file management process
As an outcome of the case file analysis conducted across the five Pacific nations a mapping
of the case file process was undertaken and the case file process for each nation is
presented in Appendix 4.
The difficulties locating domestic violence files during the fieldwork for this project
highlighted the major issues with the case file management process in all five nations. While
processes are place to ensure that all criminal files are managed effectively, this process
was not fully put into practice.
A lack of resources is one major reason why the case file management systems in all five
nations involved in this project are not working. Across all the nations the ability to
appropriately and securely file closed cases is greatly hampered as there is often no
purpose built facilities or resources available to store closed files. The problem with the filing
systems is an historical issue and much work is needed (ideally conducted by professional
file management expert) to ensure that the all police files are appropriately organised in
order that they may be located.
General observations
The following observations are similar across the five nations:

the infrequent inclusion of the file copy of the Domestic Violence Report form which is
used with CMIS data entry;
x

the brevity of the formal statements taken by police;

a lack of forensic evidence included in case files, photographs of injuries and the scene
and sketches of the scene (it should be noted that Kiribati do not have any forensic
equipment or cameras available); and,

the numerous gaps in the completion of information or information missing from files.
Recommendations
The continued implementation of PPDVP across all nations would be strengthened through
the following:
1.
the five Pacific Police forces develop a clear understanding of, and adherence to, case
file management best practice;
2.
further training and supervisory programmes to ensure that best practice is
consistently followed when investigating domestic violence cases;
3.
formalise and implement case withdrawal protocols;
4.
the implementation of a system in which all domestic violence cases are returned to
the Domestic Violence Team / Unit for completion and entry into CMIS / other
databases; and,
5.
the development of guidelines to support complainant withdrawal petitions at court.
xi
2 Introduction
The Pacific Prevention of Domestic Violence Programme (PPDVP) is an initiative of the New
Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID), New Zealand Police and the Pacific
Islands Chiefs of Police. The programme builds on earlier NZAID and New Zealand Police
support for domestic violence prevention in the Pacific.
The long-term goal of the PPDVP is “a safer Pacific free from domestic violence”. Its primary
focus is building the capacity of Pacific Police services to prevent and respond effectively to
domestic violence. The programme involves both regional and national level components. At
the regional level, all Pacific countries are invited to participate in a range of training,
networking and information sharing activities. At the national level, the programme works
intensively with the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu. In each of these
countries, sustained support is provided for the development of Police domestic violence
policy, strategy, action plans, systems and training programmes. A New Zealand Police
mentor has been assigned to each of the five countries to support these efforts.
The Pacific Prevention of Domestic Violence Programme commissioned Kaitiaki Research
and Evaluation (Kaitiaki) to conduct a case file attrition analysis across five Pacific nations
(Cook Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu). Attrition is the process by which
domestic violence cases reported to the police are discontinued, and thus fail to reach trial
and/or result in a conviction (Lovett & Kelly, 2009, p.17).
A case file attrition analysis provides an important indication of police and wider justicerelated practices across different stages of a domestic violence investigation, from the initial
report of a complaint to the case outcome, as well as providing an opportunity to identify
points of attrition.6
The case file attrition analysis forms one component of the PPDVP monitoring and
evaluation framework. The current research provides baseline data for later comparison.
The case file attrition analysis aimed to:

explore the profile of victims and perpetrators / suspects and their relationships to each
another;

explore characteristics of domestic violence cases (for example whether a weapon was
involved and where the incident occurred);

provide information surrounding the particulars of the police investigation of domestic
violence cases;

identify why and cases were withdrawn and by whom;

identify the attrition rates in domestic violence cases across three different stages of
inquiry (Police, Prosecution and Court);

determine the proportion, and number, of complaints enter the courts;

determine the proportion, and number, of domestic violence complaints that are
prosecuted;
6
Case file attrition analysis (for example LCWRI, 20126; Lievore, 20046; Lovett & Kelly, 20096)
provides the most robust measure of attrition and the outcome of a domestic violence complaint.
In practice, case file analysis involves a review of a random selection of case files over a specified
timeframe, for example one year.
1

determine the proportion, and number, of cases receive a punitive judgement versus a
judgement of not guilty; and

determine the amount of time does it take for the courts to hear a domestic violence
case.
In addition, the case file attrition analysis provided an opportunity to map the case file
process in each nation.
2
3 Approach
The case file attrition analysis employed a quantitative approach. Data was collected from
domestic violence case files from the year 2012, over a five-week period between August
and September 2014 in the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu. This
particular year was chosen because in-country stakeholders had advised all cases from this
year would have been finalised by the time the project’s fieldwork was conducted.
Project scoping and preparatory work
A scoping project took place in February 2014 in Kiribati and Vanuatu. The aim of the
scoping was to determine whether the proposed case file attrition analysis could be
rigorously conducted in each country, with a secondary aim of identifying any elements that
might facilitate or preclude other forms of on-going monitoring and evaluation data collection.
It was determined that the case file analysis was practical and achievable, however, a the
following pre-fieldwork tasks were required to be undertaken, in each nation, before the
research commenced:

organise an interpreter to assist with the translation of file information;

organise a police officer to liaise with the prosecution and court to secure files;

locate the DV files before the researcher arrives in the country;

advise the researcher of missing files / issues with locating the files before they are in
country; and,

arrange for the files to be brought to one central location (if this is not possible, all the
files for review will need to be in one place at the different locations (e.g. Court or
prosecution office).
Coding framework
The coding framework and data collection form was informed by the rape attrition research
conducted by Lovett and Kelly (2009) and Lievore (2004) (see Appendix 1).
Data collection form
The data collection form was largely a replica of that used by Lievore (2004). A few
additional questions, developed by Lovett and Kelly (2009), were also included along with
two questions that were relevant to the current project.
The form (see Appendix 2) included 48 open and closed-ended questions that addressed
the following areas:

victim characteristics;

suspect / offender characteristics;

relationship between the victim and suspect / offender;

case characteristics;

police investigation and charges;

court proceedings; and,

case summary and outcome.
3
Definitions and core concepts
As with Lovett and Kelly’s (2009) study, a simplified model of the legal process was utilised,
as the distinctions between investigation and prosecution were different across a number of
dimensions in each nation.
In regards to the point in an investigation when a case was discontinued, the following broad
definitions apply:

early investigation – the report and the week following;

mid-investigation – completion of initial evidence gathering, including formal
statements, identification of suspect and charge; and,

late investigation – completion of any additional evidence gathering; charges laid;
decisions about prosecution being made.
The term ‘referred for trial’ means that a court hearing is planned, but allows for the
possibility that it may not take place due to late discontinuances or other factors.
Data collection and sampling
It was envisaged that a sample of 100 domestic violence case files from the 2012 calendar
year (1 January 2012 – 31 December 2012) would be randomly selected from the total
number of domestic violence files in each nation (see Table 1) that met the below criteria:
1.
cases were reported between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2012 and have since
been finalised either through the courts or by discontinuance;
2.
victims were adults over the age of 18 years old;
3.
defendants or perpetrators were or would have been tried in the adult court system or
were over the age of 18 at the time of the offence; and,
4.
the primary charge was domestic-violence related.
It was intended that a systematic random sampling technique be utilised in order to
randomly select the sample of 100 domestic violence case files. This sampling technique
was used in Kiribati and the random numbers table was used to determine the starting
position of file selection and every second file from this position was selected to take part in
the analysis until 100 files were selected from the 235 DV files from Betio station that met
the criteria.
In the Cook Islands, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu, due to problems with the organisation of
the filing systems and the subsequent inability to locate to 100 files, DV files could not be
randomly selected. In each of these nations the samples included all the DV files that could
be located during the five-day fieldwork period. The below table provides an overview of the
sample from each country.
In Kiribati, Tonga, Samoa and Vanuatu a police officer with the domestic violence unit / team
assisted in the translation of the domestic violence files. A translator was not necessary in
the Cook Islands as all the files were in English.
4
Table 2: Sample Information
Participating country
Geographical area
Sample size
Cook Islands
Rarotonga
55
Kiribati
Betio
100
Samoa
Upolu
31
Tonga
Nuku’alofa
55
Vanuatu
Port Vila
23
Ethical considerations
Through the data collection process and analysis the files and the completed data collection
forms were secure at all times.
The results of this analysis are confidential to the PPDVP and the Police Commissioners in
each country.
Analysis
The data collection form contained both close-ended questions and open-ended questions.
Descriptive analyses (simple frequency counts and percentages) were produced for the case
file data from each nation.
The analysis provides information on the following areas:

victim characteristics;

perpetrator/defendant characteristics;

location of incident;

type of incident and injuries;

time taken to report;

police investigation;

prosecution processes;

case outcome; and,

attrition rates and points.
Limitations
Due to the difficulties in finding large enough sample sizes in the Cook Islands, Samoa,
Tonga and Vanuatu we were not able to analysis the data for any significant relationships, as
statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to ensure that it is representative. Due
to the small sample sizes the results can also not be generalised to all domestic violence
cases in each nation. The amount of data missing from files was also a limitation of this
study and an obstacle to finding meaningful trends (especially with the data collected from
Kiribati).
5
4 Victim and Perpetrator Characteristics
Victim characteristics
Females were overwhelmingly the victims of the domestic violence incidents reported to
police across all nations (see Table 3). Over 90% of victims were female in Tonga (n=52,
95%) and Vanuatu (n=21, 91%), with 89% of victims in Kiribati recorded as female (n=89).
In the Cook Islands 46 victims were female (82%) and men comprised 18% (n=10) of
recorded victims and in Samoa 74% of victims were female (n=23), with just over a quarter
of the victims recorded as male (n=8, 26%). This finding strongly indicates that the vast
majority of victims of domestic violence are women and highlights that gender is a significant
risk factor to experiencing domestic violence.
The ages of the victims across the five nations are also presented in Table 3. The median
age of victims, across the nations ranged between 27-years in Tonga and 37 years in
Kiribati. Across nations the age of victims ranged between 18 years (in each of the nations)
and 96 years of age in Vanuatu. The majority of victims in Kiribati (n=58, 58%), Samoa
(n=26, 84%), Tonga (n=41, 75%) and Vanuatu (n=11, 48%) were married, however, in the
Cook Islands the majority of victims were living in a defacto relationship (n=30, 54%) (see
Table 3).
In the Cook Islands nearly all of the victims identified as Cook Island Māori (n=51, 91%), with
the remaining victims recorded as New Zealand (n=2, 4%), Australian (n=1, 2%), Samoan
(n=1, 2%) and one victim’s ethnicity was not recorded (n=1, 2%). In Tonga, almost of the
victims were recorded as Tongan (n=51, 93%). The remaining victims identified as Fijian
(2%), Chinese (1%) and Australian (1%). The majority of victims in Vanuatu identified as
were Ni-Vanuatu (n=22, 96%). One identified as French (4%). In Kiribati and Samoa all the
victims came from that nation, with no foreign nations recorded as victims in the cases
examined.
In contrast to other the nations, in the Cook Islands the majority of victims were employed
(n=43, 77%) and a higher level of employment was also evidenced in Vanuatu (n=11, 48%).
In Kiribati, Samoa and Tonga the majority of victims were unemployed (see Table 3). This
finding might reflect employment-related gender inequality and the pervasive belief that a
women’s place is in the home. However, it should be that noted that Kiribati has a high
unemployment rate regardless of gender.7
As illustrated in Table 3, in the majority of the nations, substance use by the victim was not
prevalent at the time of the domestic violence incident. However, in the Cook Islands 38%
of victims were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offence (n=21).
7
The 2010 census reported an unemployment rate of 30.6% in Kiribati. The unemployment rate for
males was 27.6% and 34.1% for females (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2012).
6
Table 3: Victim Characteristics at Time of the Offence
Participating country
Characteristic
Cook Islands
Kiribati
Samoa
Tonga
Vanuatu
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Female
46
82%
89
89%
23
74%
52
95%
21
91%
Male
10
18%
10
10%
8
26%
3
6%
2
9%
Unknown
0
0%
1
1%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
18 - 24
14
25%
17
17%
6
19%
21
38%
3
13%
25 - 34
15
27%
27
27%
9
29%
19
35%
14
61%
35 - 44
15
27%
26
26%
8
26%
11
20%
3
13%
45 - 54
4
7%
15
15%
2
6%
2
4%
0
0%
55 - 64
5
9%
8
8%
3
10%
2
4%
0
0%
65 plus
0
0%
3
3%
2
7%
0
0%
2
9%
Unknown
3
5%
4
4%
1
3%
0
0%
1
4%
Single
2
4%
3
3%
3
10%
4
7%
7
30%
Married
19
34%
58
58%
26
84%
41
75%
11
48%
Defacto
30
54%
0
0%
0
0%
10
18%
3
13%
Widowed
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
4%
Separated
1
2%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Divorced
0
0%
2
2%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Unknown
4
7%
37
37%
2
7%
0
0%
1
4%
Gender
Age
Relationship status
7
Employment status
Employed
43
77%
15
15%
9
29%
18
33%
11
48%
Unemployed
11
20%
81
81%
19
61%
34
62%
10
44%
Student
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2
4%
2
9%
Unknown
2
4%
4
4%
3
10%
1
2%
0
0%
Substance use at time of the offence
Yes
21
38%
1
1%
3
10%
7
13%
1
4%
No
28
50%
94
94%
27
87%
48
87%
22
96%
Unknown
7
13%
5
5%
1
3%
0
0%
0
0%
Alcohol
21
100%
1
100%
3
100%
7
100%
1
100%
Drugs
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Both
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Unknown
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Notes:
1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.
2. In Samoa one case included multiple offenders, hence the total number of perpetrators / suspects exceeds the total number of cases.
0%
Type of substance
8
Perpetrator / suspect characteristics
Across the five nations, the majority of the perpetrators / suspects were male (see
Table 4). This finding further supports the gendered nature of domestic violence
across the five nations. Nearly all of the perpetrators / suspects in Kiribati were male
(n=93, 93%) and only 6% of perpetrators / suspects were recorded as female (n=6).
In Tonga all of the perpetrators / suspects were male (n=49, 89%), however, it should
be noted that there were six cases in which gender was not recorded. In Samoa 80%
of perpetrators / suspects were male (n=28), 17% (n=6) were female and in the Cook
Islands, 15% (n=8) of the perpetrators / suspects were female. In Vanuatu only two
perpetrators / suspects were female (8%).
The age of the perpetrators / suspects were relatively similar to that of the victims of
report incidents of domestic violence, with the exception of Kiribati, in which the
median age of the perpetrator / suspect was older than the victim by nine years. The
median age of perpetrators / suspects, across the nations ranged between 28 years
in Kiribati and 35 years in the Cook Islands. Across nations the age of victims ranged
between 18 years (in Kiribati, Tonga and Vanuatu) and 67 years of age in Vanuatu.
In three of the nations most perpetrators / suspects were married, with 55% in Kiribati
(n=55), 83% in Samoa (n=29) and 67% Tonga (n=37) recorded as married. In the
Cook Islands 36%(n=19) of perpetrators / suspects were married, with 44% (n=24) in
a defacto relationships. While nine of the perpetrators/ suspects in Vanuatu were
married (36%), six of them were single (24%) and six were also in a defacto
relationship (24%). In Kiribati, in 38% of the cases (n=38) the gender of the
perpetrator / suspect was not recorded. Across the other nations there were also
cases in which this information was missing.
As with the recorded ethnicity of the victims, the majority of perpetrators / suspects
were nationals of the five nations. In the Cooks Islands 54 perpetrators / suspects
were Cook Island Maori (98%) and the remaining perpetrator / suspect was from
Samoa (n=1, 2%). While the majority of perpetrators / suspects in Tonga identified
as Tongan (n=45, 82%), three were Fijian (6%), one was German (2%) and the
ethnicity of six perpetrators / suspects were not recorded (1%). Only one perpetrator
was not Ni-Vanuatu in the 23 cases examined in Vanuatu and identified as French
(2%). All the perpetrators / suspects in the cases analysed in Samoa and Kiribati
were from that country.
With the exception of Kiribati, in which unemployment across both genders is high,
perpetrators / suspects were much more likely to be employed than their victims (see
Table 4). In Kiribati only 25% (n=25) of perpetrators / suspects were employed,
compared to 82% in the Cook Islands (n=45), 63% in Samoa (n=22), 66% in Tonga
(n=36) and 60% in Vanuatu (n=15). Across all nations there were instances in which
the employment status of the perpetrator / suspect was not recorded on the file.
The use of alcohol at the time of the incident was high for those perpetrators /
suspects in Kiribati (n=84, 84%). The use of a substance by a perpetrator / suspect
was also present in 65% (n=36) of cases in the Cook Islands, 40% of cases in
Vanuatu (n=10), 29% of cases in Samoa (n=10) and 20% of cases in Tonga (n=11).
Alcohol was the substance used by 100% of perpetrators / suspects in the Cook
Islands, Kiribati, Tonga and Samoa, and while nine of the ten perpetrators / suspects
were drinking alcohol at the time of the offence in Vanuatu; one was under the
influence of marijuana. As depicted in Table 4, the use of a substance at the time of
9
offence was not always recorded in the domestic violence cases across all five
nations.
Information regarding previous convictions was also not always present in domestic
violence case files. Previous conviction information was not found in 86% (n=86) of
the files examined in Kiribati and in 68% of the files in Vanuatu (n=17). In the Cook
Islands, just under half of the files did not contain this information (n=26, 47%),
whereas this information was missing in 11% (n=6) of files from Tonga. All files in
Samoa contained Previous Convictions documents that outlined the criminal history
of the perpetrator / suspect. In those nations in which previous convictions were
included in the paperwork, the majority of perpetrators / suspects had no previous
convictions (see Table 4). 8
8
Criminal history information is not held by the police and the responsibility of ensuring the
criminal history of a suspect is included in the file does not lie with the police. It is the
responsibility of the prosecutor or court to ensure this information is present. However,
information regarding criminal history is extremely important and should routinely be
included in cases that are prosecuted as previous offending impacts sentencing decisions.
10
Table 4: Perpetrator / Suspect Characteristics at Time of the Offence
Participating country
Characteristic
Cook Islands
Kiribati
Samoa
Tonga
Vanuatu
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Female
8
15%
6
6%
6
17%
0
0%
2
8%
Male
47
85%
93
93%
28
80%
49
89%
23
92%
Unknown
0
0%
1
1%
1
3%
6
11%
0
0%
18 - 24
15
27%
24
24%
5
14%
7
13%
7
28%
25 - 34
10
18%
50
50%
13
37%
23
42%
10
40%
35 - 44
21
38%
15
15%
11
31%
10
18%
1
4%
45 - 54
5
9%
9
9%
3
9%
6
11%
0
0%
55 - 64
1
2%
0
0%
1
3%
2
4%
2
8%
65 plus
0
0%
0
0%
2
6%
1
2%
0
0%
Unknown
3
6%
2
2%
0
0%
6
11%
5
20%
Single
7
13%
6
6%
2
6%
3
6%
6
24%
Married
19
35%
55
55%
29
83%
37
67%
9
36%
Defacto
24
44%
0
0%
2
6%
9
16%
6
24%
Widowed
0
0%
0
0%
1
3%
0
0%
0
0%
Separated
1
2%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Divorced
0
0%
1
1%
0
0%
1
2%
0
0%
Unknown
4
7%
38
38%
1
3%
5
9%
4
16%
Gender
Age
Relationship status
11
Employment status
Employed
45
82%
25
25%
22
63%
36
66%
15
60%
Unemployed
5
9%
61
61%
11
31%
13
24%
4
16%
Student
0
0%
2
2%
0
0%
0
0%
1
4%
Unknown
5
9%
12
12%
2
6%
6
11%
5
20%
Substance use at time of the offence
Yes
36
65%
84
84%
10
29%
11
20%
10
40%
No
16
29%
12
12%
24
69%
38
69%
6
24%
Unknown
3
6%
4
4%
1
3%
6
11%
9
36%
Alcohol
35
97%
84
100%
10
100%
11
100%
9
90%
Drugs
1
3%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
10%
Both
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Unknown
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
None
19
35%
2
2%
30
86%
26
47%
7
28%
Prior DV offence
3
5%
0
0%
1
3%
23
42%
1
4%
Prior sexual offence
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Prior violent offence
0
0%
3
3%
2
6%
0
0%
0
0%
Prior other
1
2%
9
9%
2
6%
0
0%
0
0%
Prior unknown
6
11%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Type of substance
Other prior offences
Unknown
26
47%
86
86%
0
0%
6
11%
17
68%
Notes:
1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.
2. In Samoa and Vanuatu one case included multiple offenders, hence the total number of perpetrators / suspects exceeds the total number of cases.
12
Relationship between the victim and the perpetrator / suspect
The perpetrator / suspect was the victim’s current partner in the majority of cases in the
Cook Islands (n=42, 76%), Tonga (n=46, 84%) and Vanuatu (n=14, 56%). In both Kiribati
(n=45, 45%) and Samoa (n=14, 40%), however, less than half of the cases involved current
partners. Of interest, in over half of the cases in Samoa (n=21, 60%) the perpetrator /
suspect was a family member of the victim. This finding was also reflected in Kiribati, as in
53% of the cases examined the perpetrator / suspect was the victim’s family member (n=53).
There were nine (17%) perpetrators/ suspects in the Tonga cases that were recorded as
family members. In the cases examined in Vanuatu, the reported perpetrator / suspect was
a family member in 44% of incidents (n=11). There were eight (15%) perpetrators / suspects
that were family members of their victims in the Cook Islands. For a full breakdown of the
familial relationship, please see Table 5.
Former partners were the perpetrators / suspects in two cases in both the Cook Islands (4%)
and Kiribati (2%) (see Table 5). In the Cook Islands the perpetrator / suspect was an
unrelated person in three cases (5%), however, the incident is still defined as domestic
violence as the incidents involved ex-partners of a victim’s family member. In one case the
perpetrator / suspect was the victim’s daughter’s ex-partner and in two cases the perpetrator
/ suspect was ex-partner of the victim’s current partner.
Table 5: Relationship of Perpetrator / Suspect to the Victim
Participating country
Cook
Islands
Kiribati
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Current partner
42
76%
45
45%
14
40%
46
84%
14
56%
Former partner
2
4%
2
2%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Aunt
-
-
1
1%
1
3%
-
-
-
-
Brother
1
2%
13
13%
3
9%
2
4%
1
4%
Cousin
1
2%
1
1%
10
29%
2
4%
-
-
Daughter
-
-
2
2%
-
-
-
-
-
-
Granddaughter
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
4%
Father
-
-
-
-
1
3%
1
2%
1
4%
In-law
1
2%
8
8%
2
6%
-
-
1
4%
Mother
1
2%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nephew
-
-
3
3%
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sister
-
-
1
1%
-
-
1
2%
-
-
Son
1
2%
19
19%
2
6%
1
2%
2
8%
Step-father
2
4%
1
1%
-
-
-
-
-
-
Step-son
-
-
1
1%
-
-
-
-
-
-
Uncle
-
-
-
-
1
3%
1
2%
-
-
1
2%
3
3%
1
3%
1
2%
5
20%
0%
0
0%
Type
Samoa
Tonga
Vanuatu
Family
Family unknown
Other
3
6%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Notes: 1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.
13
2. In Samoa and Vanuatu one case included multiple offenders, hence the total number of
perpetrators / suspects exceeds the total number of cases.
14
5 Offence Characteristics
Across all five nations the overwhelming majority of cases involved an incident between one
victim and one perpetrator / suspect (see Table 6). The majority of cases involved a
physical assault. For instance, 98% of cases in Tonga (n=54) involved physical violence,
83% of cases in Vanuatu (n=19), 68% (n= 21) of cases in Samoa and 65% (n=36) of
incidents in the Cook Islands. In Kiribati the majority of cases examined did not involve a
physical assault and verbal arguments (n=63, 63%) were much more common. In Vanuatu
one third of the incidents involved a sexual assault (n=7) and in Tonga one case involved
sexual violence (2%) (see Table 6).
Victim injury as a result of the reported domestic violence incident was common in Tonga
(n=48, 87%), Vanuatu (n=16, 70%) and Samoa (n=18, 58%). However, lower rates of injury
were recorded in the Cook Islands (n=24, 44%,) and Kiribati (n=28, 28%,). Weapon use
was not prevalent in the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Samoa or Tonga.9 However, the use of
weapons was more prominent in Vanuatu and in 39% of the cases examined (n=9) a
weapon was involved in the incident.
As illustrated in Table 6, the reported domestic violence incidents predominantly occurred in
the home of the victim across all five nations. However, there were domestic violence
incidents that took place outside of the home. In the Cook Islands and Tonga, one case was
recorded as having occurred in the victim’s workplace, with the current partner of the victim
physically assaulting them while they were at work (2% of cases reviewed in the Cook
Islands and Tonga). In Vanuatu six incidents occurred in other locations (26%), with five
incidents happening in public places and one at a friend’s house. In the Cook Islands 13%
(n=7) of incidents occurred in an ‘other’ location. These included two incidents at a friend’s
home, one at a family member’s home, one at a bar and three incidents that occurred in a
public place. Of the three incidents in Samoa that occurred away from home (10%), one
incident took place at the offender’s home, one at a hotel and one at the market. In Tonga
only two incidents happened in a public place (4%).
There was some disparity across the nations in regards to the time it took for the domestic
violence offence to be reported to the police. It was common in the Cook Islands for the
police to be called at the time of the incident (n=44, 80%), with the majority of incidents also
reported at the time they occurred in Kiribati (n=69, 69%).10
In the three remaining nations post-incident reporting was more common. In Tonga the
majority of incidents (n=29, 53%) were reported within three hours or between three and 24
hours (n=12, 22%) after the incident. This is perhaps not unexpected given that the majority
of victims report directly to the police station rather than call the police. In Samoa, there was
a greater spread of reporting times across the cases. Most were reported within three hours
of the incident (n=9, 29%) or at the time of the incident (n=8, 26%). In Vanuatu, five cases
were reported within three hours (22%), five within three to 24 hours after the incident (22%)
and another five within eight days plus (22%). Of note, three of the five incidents reported
eight days or later to the police in Vanuatu were sexual assault cases.
9
10
PPDVP’s knowledge of domestic violence incidents in Kiribati indicates that the use of weapons in
domestic violence incidents is high. The low proportion of weapon use found in the current project
could indicate a lack of reporting or the use of weapon by police.
In regards to Kiribati this finding is encouraging and anecdotally a call to the police at the time of a
domestic violence incident would not have been common in the past.
15
While it would ideal to see all domestic violence cases reported to the police at the time of
the incident, numerous factors impact on the ability of victims or witnesses to report an
offence immediately. An example of such factors include public knowledge of a lack of
available police vehicles, remoteness of villages, lack of access to telephones and in some
nations there is a preference to report directly to domestic violence teams / units at the
station.
16
Table 6: Offence Characteristics
Participating country
Characteristic
Cook Islands
Kiribati
Samoa
Tonga
Vanuatu
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
One victim
54
98%
100
100%
31
100%
55
100%
23
100%
Two victims
1
2%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
One suspect
55
100%
100
100%
28
90%
55
100%
22
96%
Two suspects
0
0%
0
0%
2
7%
0
0%
0
0%
Three suspects
0
0%
0
0%
1
3%
0
0%
1
4%
Yes
36
66%
37
37%
21
68%
54
98%
19
83%
No
19
35%
63
63%
10
32%
0
0%
4
17%
Unknown
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
2%
0
0%
Yes
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
2%
7
30%
No
55
100%
100
100%
31
100%
53
96%
16
70%
Unknown
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
2%
0
0%
Yes
24
44%
28
28%
18
58%
48
87%
16
70%
No
31
56%
71
71%
13
42%
6
11%
7
30%
Unknown
0
0%
1
1%
0
0%
1
2%
0
0%
6
11%
6
6%
5
16%
3
6%
9
39%
Number of victims
Number of suspects
Physical assault
Sexual assault component
Victim injured
Weapon/s used
Yes
17
Participating country
Characteristic
Cook Islands
Kiribati
Samoa
Tonga
Vanuatu
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
No
49
89%
94
94%
26
84%
51
93%
14
61%
Unknown
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
2%
0
0%
Home
47
85%
92
92%
28
90%
52
95%
17
74%
Work
1
2%
0
0%
0
0%
1
2%
0
0%
Other
7
13%
8
8%
3
10%
2
4%
6
26%
Unknown
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
At the time
44
80%
69
69%
8
26%
4
7%
4
17%
Within 3 hours
7
13%
5
5%
9
29%
29
53%
5
22%
3 – 24 hours
3
6%
22
22%
6
19%
12
22%
5
22%
2 – 7 days
1
2%
1
1%
4
13%
6
11%
4
17%
8 days plus
0
0%
0
0%
1
3%
4
7%
5
22%
3
10%
0
0%
0
0%
Location of incident
Time taken to report offence
Unknown
0
0%
3
3%
Note: Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.
18
6 Police Investigation and Prosecution Processes
This section of the data collection aimed to garner insight into the police investigation
processes and the type of evidence gathered during an investigation of a domestic violence
case.
As depicted in Table 7, as part of the domestic violence investigation, the victim was nearly
always interviewed. However, as a routine part of an investigation, the interviewing of a
perpetrator / suspect did not occur universally with only 70% of perpetrators / suspects
(n=16) interviewed in Vanuatu. The perpetrator / suspect interview figures were higher for
the Cook Islands (n=47, 85%), Kiribati (n=92, 92%), Samoa (n=30, 97%) and Tonga (n=50,
91%). However, it would be expected that perpetrator / suspect of a domestic violence
crime be interviewed as part of the investigation process in all domestic violence cases.
Similarly, an interview with witnesses (including police who attend the incident) would be
form an expected part of the investigation of a domestic violence incident. The interviewing
of witnesses was infrequent in the Cook Islands with only 44% of cases (n=24) and very
infrequent in Tonga (n=7, 13%). More than half of the investigations conducted in the cases
examined in Kiribati included witness interviews (n=56, 56%) and in almost three quarters of
the report incidents in Samoa (n=23, 74%) this occurred. Witness interviews were more
common in the cases analysed in Vanuatu, with 87% of investigations including at least one
witness statement (n=20).
Forensic scene examinations were also not evident in the case files examined (see Table 7).
In Kiribati, according to police sources, there is no forensic equipment available to police
when investigating crimes, thus no scene examinations can be conducted. It is understood
that, in Samoa and Tonga, forensic equipment is available to police officers, however no
scene examinations were reported in either nation. In three of the cases reviewed in
Vanuatu (13%), a forensic scene examination took place and in the Cook Islands scene
examinations took place in five of the cases (9%). Both of these nations have access to
forensic equipment and when forensic scene examinations, when undertaken, they generally
involved sketches and photographs of the scene when conducted in Vanuatu and the Cook
Islands.
The collection of other pieces of evidence to support a case was not common in any of the
nations. In the Cook Islands there were additional pieces of evidence collected in 41% of
the cases (n=11). This additional evidence included victim impact statements, which were
present in 18 files, medical reports which were included in 16 files, in five cases photographs
of the injuries were included and in one case a previous convictions document was included
as evidence. In Kiribati additional evidence was present in 23% (n=23) of case file analysed,
with 14 cases including a medical report on the injuries suffered by the victim and ten files
containing a police clearance certificate which outlines the previous convictions of the
perpetrator / suspect. In Samoa, additional evidence was found in seven cases (23%). In
four of the cases there was a victim impact report included, in three cases a medical report,
in one case a rifle was entered as an exhibit, in one file there was a previous convictions
document and in another case a document outlining the perpetrator’s / suspect’s history of
mental health issues was presented as additional evidence.
In the majority of cases analysed in the Cook Islands, Samoa and Tonga the perpetrator /
suspect was arrested (see Table 7). However, in Kiribati the figure was lower with
60%(n=60) of perpetrator / suspect’s arrested in relation to the reported domestic violence
incident. The number of perpetrator / suspect’s arrested was lowest in Vanuatu, with arrests
made in only eight of the cases (35%).
19
In the majority of cases, across the five nations, charges were laid. Due to the Samoan
sample wholly comprising of files that were prosecuted, all of the cases examined from
Samoa resulted in charges being laid (n=31). Similarly in Tonga, the majority of the files
located had been prosecuted, thus in 93% (n=51) of cases the police laid charges
(compared to four cases where a charge had not been laid (7%). The reasons for charges
not being laid included three cases in which the victim withdrew her complaint and in one
case the suspect and victim were not able to be located. In the remaining nations, 73% of
cases in Kiribati (n=73), 51% of cases in the Cook Islands (n=28) and 35% (n=8) of cases in
Vanuatu resulted in charges being laid by the police.
The reasons that charges were not laid in the remaining three nations varied. In the 26
cases in Kiribati reasons for not laying a charge included:

victim withdrawal (n=15);

insufficient evidence (n=5);

the case reaching its statute of limitation (n=1);

a lack of victim cooperation into the investigation (n=1); and,

unknown (n=4).
In the Cook Islands reasons for not laying a charge in 28 cases included:

the incident was reported as minor (n=10);

alternative action was deemed more appropriate, such as peace settlements and
counselling (n=4);

the couple were warned at the scene (n=4);

the victim did not want to press charges (n=2);

insufficient evidence (n=1);

either the victim and / or suspect could not be located following the incident (n=2); and,

unknown (n=5).
In the 15 cases in Vanuatu in which the perpetrator / suspect was not charged, reasons for
not laying a charge included:

victim withdrawal (n=9);

a traditional reconciliation occurred between the couple (n=1)

the victim did not cooperate with the police investigation (n=3); and,

the suspect could not be located following the incident (n=2.,
Across all nations there were common themes to the victim having requested a complaint
withdrawal. Victims’ reasons for requesting a withdrawal included:

the perpetrator / suspect having apologised and promising to never do it again;

the couple having settled their differences and working on building a better relationship;
and,

economic stress related to the need for the perpetrator / suspect to support and provide
for the family..
20
In the Cook Islands, Samoa and Vanuatu when charges were laid in a case, the case was
subsequently referred for trial. In the two remaining nations, not all cases were referred for
trial. In Tonga, two cases did not make it to court following charges being laid, as one case
had reached the three-month statute of limitations and expired and in the other case the
victim withdrew her complain following charges being laid. In Kiribati, there were 24 cases in
which charges were laid, but the case never made it to court. In seven of the cases a
decision to no prosecute was made due to insufficient evidence and in six of the cases the
victim withdrew their complaint after the charges had been laid. Of the remaining 11 cases,
it was not known why the case was not referred to court. This information was not included
in the file notes or documents.
21
Table 7: Police Investigation and Prosecution Processes
Participating country
Variable
Cook Islands
Kiribati
Samoa
Tonga
Vanuatu
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Yes
50
89%
95
95%
31
100%
55
100%
22
96%
No
6
11%
3
3%
0
0%
0
0%
1
4%
Unknown
0
0%
2
2%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Victim interviewed
Perpetrator / suspect interviewed
Yes
47
85%
92
92%
30
97%
50
91%
16
70%
No
8
15%
7
7%
1
3%
4
7%
6
26%
Unknown
0
0%
1
1%
0
0%
1
2%
1
4%
Forensic scene examination conducted
Yes
5
9%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
3
13%
No
50
91%
100
100%
31
100%
55
100%
20
87%
Unknown
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Yes
24
44%
56
56%
23
74%
7
13%
20
87%
No
31
56%
44
44%
8
26%
48
87%
3
13%
Unknown
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Yes
28
51%
60
60%
29
94%
52
95%
8
35%
No
27
49%
28
28%
2
7%
3
6%
12
52%
Unknown
0
0%
12
12%
0
0%
0
0%
3
13%
Yes
28
51%
73
73%
31
100%
51
93%
8
35%
No
27
49%
26
26%
0
0%
4
7%
15
65%
Unknown
0
0%
1
1%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Witness/es interviewed
Suspect arrested
Were charges laid
22
Participating country
Variable
Cook Islands
Kiribati
Samoa
Tonga
Vanuatu
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Yes
28
51%
49
49%
31
100%
49
89%
8
35%
No
27
49%
40
40%
0
0%
6
11%
15
65%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Referred for trial
Unknown
0
0%
11
11%
Note: Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.
23
7 Charges, Court Proceedings and Outcomes
The charges laid, court proceedings and outcomes of the cases that were referred to court
are outlined in Tables 8 to 12. The findings from each nation are presented in separate
tables due to different charges and justice systems. Across each of the five nations no
charge negotiation occurred in any of the cases at either the police, prosecution or court
stage. The files were also analysed to identify the length of time for the case to reach court.
Cook Islands
In 96% of the Cook Island cases examined, the charge laid by the police was assault on a
female (n=27), with the charge of common assault laid in the remaining case (see Table 8).
In the Cook Islands there are four courts that hear criminal cases: the Privy Council (UK),
the Court of Appeal, the High Court (High Court Judge) and the High Court (Justice of the
Peace). In the High Court a Justice of the Peace has the jurisdiction to deal with criminal
matters with the maximum penalty of imprisonment up to two years and/or a fine of no more
than $NZD200. All cases reviewed were heard by a Justice of the Peace in the High Court.
In the majority of cases the perpetrator / suspect pleaded guilty at court (n=21, 75%). There
were two (7%) cases in which the Justice of the Peace dismissed the case, with one case
dismissed as the victim did not appear before the court as she was in New Zealand and in
the other case the reason was unknown, however the case had been adjourned nine times
previously. Of the remaining cases, in one case the perpetrator / suspect was found guilty
of the offence (4%), in one case the victim withdrew at court (4%) and in three cases the
outcome was not noted on the file (11%).
In the 22 cases in which the perpetrator / suspect was convicted, the court handed down a
range of punishments and, in a number of cases, multiple punishments for a charge were
decided by court. In the majority of the cases in which there was a conviction, the offender
was discharged with the order to appear before the Court if called upon in following six
months (n=11, 50%). In nine cases fines were awarded (41%), ranging from $NZD30.00 to
$NZD210.00. In nine cases six months community service was awarded (41%). In seven
cases offenders received 12-months probation (32%) and in four cases the offenders were
banned from purchasing and consuming alcohol (18%).11 In five cases the court ordered the
offender to attend counselling or a workshop (23%) and in three cases the offender was
ordered to pay the victim $25.00 reparation to meet the costs of the medical report (13%).12
In one case the punishment was missing from the file (5%). No custodial sentences were
handed down to offenders in the Cook Islands.
The case files were analysed to find out how long it took from the date of the initial report of
the complaint to the final court hearing. The number of days that victims had to wait until the
resolution of their case ranged from two to 39 days, with a mean number of 9.6 days from
the time of the initial complaint to the final court hearing.
11
12
Probation is a form of suspended prison sentence of no less than one year nor more than 3 years
imposed by the Court that in its discretion feels that it is in the best interest of the offender to be
given an opportunity to rehabilitate. If the offender is uncooperative with their probation, the Court
may impose a prison sentence (Ministry of Justice, 2014).
The type of workshop the offender was to attend was not listed on the file.
24
Table 8: Cook Islands Court Proceedings and Outcome
Variable
n
%
Assault on a female
27
96%
Common assault
1
4%
28
100%
Withdrawn
1
4%
Acquitted / not guilty
0
0%
Found guilty
1
4%
Pleaded guilty
21
75%
Dismissed
2
7%
Unknown
3
11%
Discharged
11
50%
Counselling / workshop
5
23%
Compensation
3
13%
Fine
9
41%
Alcohol ban
4
18%
Community service
9
41%
Probation (suspended sentence)
7
32%
Custodial sentence
0
0%
Charges laid
Level of court
High Court (Justice of the Peace)
Outcome for charges
Punishment
Unknown
1
5%
Notes:
1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.
2. As multiple charges and punishments were possible percentages will exceed 100%.
Kiribati
In the 49 Kiribati cases referred for trial a range of charges were laid and in ten cases the
police laid multiple charges. Of note, the most frequent charge laid was common nuisance
(n=42, 86%) and in 12 cases (25%) the charge was common assault (see Table 9).13 In
Kiribati there are four courts that hear criminal cases: the Privy Council, Court of Appeal,
High Court and Magistrate’s Courts. All 49 cases were heard in the Magistrate’s Court,
which has the jurisdiction to pass imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and a
fine not exceeding $AUD500.
Court outcomes included a guilty plea from the offender (n= 13, 27%) and in five cases the
Magistrate dismissed the case (10%). There were 11 instances of the victim withdrawing
the case at court (22%) and, in 19 cases; the outcome was unknown (39%). In one instance
the case was acquitted due to insufficient evidence (2%).
13
It should be highlighted that police who were assisting with the translation of the files in Kiribati
noted that incorrect charges were laid in multiple cases.
25
The most frequent punishment given by the Magistrate’s Court was a fine (n=9, 69%) that
never exceeded $AUD20. In four cases (31%) a suspended sentence, ranging from three to
six months, was handed down. In another four cases offenders were bound over to keep the
peace for anytime from six months to a year or face imprisonment for a court ordered time
period (31%). In two cases the punishment was one-month’s community service (15%).
Finally, one offender received a custodial sentence of nine months (8%) and one offender’s
punishment was a ban on consuming alcohol (8%).
In the Kiribati files analysed, the number of days that victims had to wait until the their cases
were resolved in court ranged from two to 245 days, with a mean of 38.3 days from the date
of the date of the initial report of the complaint to the final court hearing.
Table 9: Kiribati Court Proceedings and Outcome
Variable
n
%
Challenging to fight
2
4%
Common assault
12
25%
Common nuisance
42
86%
Criminal trespass
2
4%
Damaging property
2
4%
Drunk and disorderly
4
8%
Drunk underage
5
10%
Unknown
8
16%
Unlawful wounding
1
2%
49
100%
Withdrawn
11
22%
Acquitted / not guilty
1
2%
Found guilty
0
0%
Pleaded guilty
13
27%
Dismissed
5
10%
Unknown
19
39%
Alcohol ban
1
8%
Bound to keep the peace
4
31%
Community service
2
15%
Custodial sentence
1
8%
Fine
9
69%
Charges laid
Level of court
Magistrate’s Court
Outcome for major charge
Punishment
Suspended sentence
4
31%
Notes:
1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.
2. As multiple charges and punishments were possible percentages will exceed 100%.
26
Samoa
In Samoa, the court heard 31 cases and there were numerous types of charges laid against
perpetrators (see Table 10). The most common charges included common assault (n=17,
55%), insulting words (n=9, 29%), actual bodily harm (n=6, 19%) and threatening words
(n=5, 16%). The court system in Samoa comprises four courts that hear criminal cases:
Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, the District Court and the Fa’amasino Fesoasoani
Court. Five (16%) of the cases were heard at the Fa’amasino Fesoasoani Court, 21 (68%)
were heard at the District Court and five (16%) were heard at the Supreme Court. The
District Court deals with all offences punishable by up to five-years imprisonment and/or a
fine of $WST10,000. The Fa’amasino Fesoasoani Court deals with offences that do not
exceed the penalty of one-year imprisonment or a fine of $WST1,000 or both.
In almost half the cases (n=14, 45%) the victim withdrew at court or the defendant pleaded
guilty (n=14, 45%). In the remaining two cases, one defendant was found guilty (3%) and
the in the other two cases (7%), one was dismissed as the perpetrator / suspect was
suffering from mental illness at the time of the offence and in the other case the offender
was discharged without conviction.
The most frequent penalty was a fine (n=9, 60%) ranging between $WST30 and
$WST4,000. In six (%) cases a suspended sentence between six-months and 15-months
were awarded. Of the remaining six cases, in two (13%) cases the offender was convicted
and discharged, in two cases (13%) the punishment was community service of between 80hours and 100-hours and, for the remaining two cases, the perpetrator / suspect was
convicted and ordered to come up for sentencing in the following 12-months if they did not
keep the peace during this time period (13%). One offender received 12-months probation
(7%) and in another case the punishment was four weeks imprisonment (7%).
In Samoa, the mean number of days from the date of the initial report of the complaint until
the final court date was 58.6 days. Of the 31 cases analysed, it took between four and 146
days, from the time of the initial complaint, for a report of domestic violence to be finalised in
court.
27
Table 10: Samoa Court Proceedings and Outcome
Variable
n
%
Actual bodily harm
6
19%
Adultery
1
3%
Armed
3
10%
Attempted arson
2
7%
Common assault
17
55%
Insulting words
9
29%
Insulting words on telecommunications
1
3%
Threat to kill
2
7%
Threatening words
5
16%
Throwing stones
1
3%
Wilful damage
2
7%
Wilful trespass
2
7%
Faamasino Fesoasoani Court
5
16%
District Court
21
68%
Supreme Court
5
16%
Withdrawn
14
45%
Acquitted / not guilty
0
0%
Found guilty
1
3%
Pleaded guilty
14
45%
Dismissed
2
7%
Unknown
0
0%
Come up again for sentencing
2
13%
Community service
2
13%
Custodial sentence
1
7%
Discharged (with conviction)
2
13%
Fine
9
60%
Probation
1
7%
Charges laid
Level of court
Outcome for major charge
Punishment
Suspended sentence
6
40%
Notes:
1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.
2. As multiple charges and punishments were possible percentages will exceed 100%.
28
Tonga
There are four courts in Tonga that hear criminal cases: Privy Council, Court of Appeal,
Supreme Court and Magistrate’s Court. The Magistrate’s Court can hear and determine
criminal matters in which the punishment does not exceed a fine of $TOP1000 or a period of
three-years' imprisonment. Almost all of the cases that were prosecuted in Tonga were
heard in the Magistrate’s Court (n=48, 98%) and the majority of perpetrators / suspects were
charged with common assault (n=46, 94%), with the remaining three offenders charged with
bodily harm (see Table 11).
In the majority of cases the suspect pleaded guilty (n=41, 84%), four cases were withdrawn
at court by the victim (8%), three were dismissed by the Magistrate (6%). Of those cases
dismissed, one was dismissed due to lack of evidence and the other two were withdrawn as
the victim and / or suspect failed to appear before the court. Of the 41 cases that resulted in
conviction, fines ranging from $TOP50.00 to $ TOP100.00 were awarded in 14 cases (34%)
and in nine cases a suspended sentence of any length between three-months and threeyears (22%) was imposed. A probation period of between six-months and two-years was
imposed in seven cases (17%) and, in five cases, prison sentences of three or six-months
were handed down (12%). Of the remaining cases, five resulted in orders of counselling
(10%), three offenders were discharged with conviction (7%), three offenders had to pay
compensation to the victim ($TOP50.00 or $TOP100.00) and the outcome of one case was
not known as the information was not included in the file (2%).
The Tongan files were analysed to find out how long it took from the date of the initial report
of the complaint to the final court hearing. The number of days that victim’s had to wait until
the resolution of their case ranged from 16 to 390 days, with a mean number of 115.5 days
from the date of the initial report of the complaint to the final court hearing.14
14
The time it took from the date of reporting to the final court hearing for one file was not known, as
the information was not contained in the file.
29
Table 11: Tonga Court Proceedings and Outcome
Variable
n
%
Bodily harm
3
6%
Common assault
46
94%
Magistrate’s Court
48
98%
Unknown
1
2%
Withdrawn
4
8%
Acquitted / not guilty
0
0%
Found guilty
0
0%
Pleaded guilty
41
84%
Dismissed
3
6%
Unknown
1
2%
Counselling
4
10%
Custodial sentence
5
12%
Discharged
3
7%
Fine
14
34%
Probation
7
17%
Suspended sentence
9
22%
Unknown
1
2%
Charges laid
Level of court
Outcome for major charge
Punishment
Victim compensation
3
7%
Notes:
1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.
2. As multiple charges and punishments were possible percentages will exceed 100%.
Vanuatu
There are four courts in Vanuatu that can hear criminal matters: The Court of Appeal, the
Supreme Court, the Magistrate’s Court and the Island Court. The Supreme Court has
unlimited jurisdiction to hear and determine criminal proceedings and the Magistrate’s Court
can hear and determine criminal proceedings for an offence for which the maximum penalty
does not exceed two-years imprisonment. Of the eight cases that were prosecuted in
Vanuatu, five were heard in the Magistrate’s Court (63%) and the remaining three were
heard in the Supreme Court (38%). Four cases included the charge of domestic violence
(50%), another four were charged with intentional assault (50%) and two cases involved the
charge of sexual intercourse without consent (25%). In addition, one charge of incest was
laid (13%). There was also one charge of act of indecency (13%) and one charge of
damage to property (13%).
In half of the cases the offender pleaded guilty to the charges (n=4), one offender was found
guilty (25%) and in two cases the charges were dismissed (25%). Charges were dismissed
in one case as the victim was not given a chance to read her statement before she signed it
and in the other case the prosecutor requested that the accused be discharged as the police
30
were not willing to go ahead with the prosecution (nolle prosequi as per Section 29 of the
Vanuatu Criminal Procedure Code, 1977). Of the five cases in which the accused was
convicted, in three cases a fine of unknown amount was imposed. Of the remaining two
cases, one case received a term of imprisonment with a sentence of 10-months
imprisonment suspended for three-years and in the other case the offender received a
penalty of 16-years imprisonment.
In Vanuatu the mean number of days from the date of the initial report until the final court
date was 305.8 days. It took between 28 and 485 days for a report of domestic violence to
be finalised in court following a report in the eight cases that reached court.
Table 12: Vanuatu Court Proceedings and Outcome
Variable
n
%
Act of Indecency
1
13%
Damage to property
1
13%
Domestic violence
4
50%
Incest
1
13%
Intentional assault
4
50%
Sexual intercourse without consent
2
25%
Magistrate’s Court
5
63%
Supreme Court
3
38%
Withdrawn
0
0%
Acquitted / not guilty
0
0%
Found guilty
1
13%
Pleaded guilty
4
50%
Dismissed
2
25%
Unknown
1
13%
2
40%
Charges laid
Level of court
Outcome for major charge
Punishment
Custodial sentence
Fine
3
60%
Notes:
1. Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.
2. As multiple charges and punishments were possible percentages will exceed 100%.
31
8 Case Summary and Attrition
Outcome of domestic violence incidents reported to the police
The following section provides a summary of the outcome of the analysed cases for each of
the five nations. The findings in this section outlines information about when in the
proceedings a case was withdrawn and, for those cases that were not referred to court, at
what stage of the police investigation the case was withdrawn. This section also presents
information on the individual responsible for the withdrawal of the case, regardless of when
in the proceedings the withdrawal occurred. The attrition rate and attrition points for each
nation are also discussed.
Outcomes
The outcomes of the analysed domestic violence cases, across the five nations, are
presented in Table 13. In the Cook Islands, in approximately half (n=27, 49%) of the cases
charges were laid and the matter proceeded to court. In Kiribati this figure was 37% (n=37),
in Samoa 100% (n=31), in Tonga 89% (n=49) and in Vanuatu 35% (n=8) of cases resulted in
charges and the case proceeding to court. Across all five nations, the remaining cases did
not proceed to court and the various other outcomes, which are discussed below.
In the Cook Islands there were 28 cases (51%) in which charges were not laid and the case
did not proceed to court. In 13 cases the police referred the victim and suspect to the
Women’s Centre for counselling (24%) and in four cases the outcome was unknown, as this
information was not included in the file (7%). There were 11 cases in which the outcome
was ‘other’ (20%). Other actions included:

police follow-up with victim and perpetrator / suspect (n=7);

no action following the closure of the case (n=3); and

a peace settlement between the couple (n=1).
The outcome of a quarter of the domestic violence cases analysed was unknown in Kiribati
(n=25). Of the remaining 38 cases that did not proceed to court, the action taken by police
was ‘other’ and in all these cases there was no action by police following case closure.
There were six (11%) domestic violence incidents in Tonga that were reported to police and
did not result in charges being laid and the case proceeding to court. In five of these cases
the police took no action. In the remaining case the outcome was unknown (2%) as it was
not noted on the file.
The majority of cases in Vanuatu resulted in ‘other’ actions being taken by the police and in
65% of the cases (n=15) the police took no action that could be discerned from the file
following the closure of the case.
32
Table 13: Outcome of Domestic Violence Incidents Reported to the Police Across Five Nations
Participating country
Cook
Islands
Outcome
Kiribati
Samoa
Tonga
Vanuatu
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Protection order
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Charges pressed and
proceeded to court
27
49%
37
37%
31
100%
49
89%
8
35%
Referred to Women’s
Centre / Counselling
13
24%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Other
11
20%
38
38%
0
0%
5
9%
15
65%
Unknown
4
7%
25
25%
0
0%
1
Note: Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.
2%
0
0%
Attrition rates and attrition points
The proportion of domestic violence cases that were withdrawn across each nation is
presented in Figure 1. The attrition rate is calculated as the proportion of reported cases
that fail to result in a conviction. Attrition rates were high across most of the nations, with the
exception of Tonga.
In the Cook Islands an attrition rate of 46% was calculated, with the same proportion of
cases resulting in a conviction. In Kiribati, the conviction rate was much lower; with only 15%
of analysed cases resulting in a conviction and an attrition rate of 54% was found. However,
it should be noted that in 31% of the cases in Kiribati the outcome was unknown. In Samoa
an attrition rate of 48% and a conviction rate of 52% was calculated. Of the domestic
violence cases analysed from Tonga, the attrition rate was 26% with 71% of cases resulting
in a conviction. In Vanuatu the attrition rate was 78%, with only 22% of cases resulting in a
conviction.
Figure 1: Proportion of Domestic Violence Cases Withdrawn Across the Five Nations
100%
90%
78%
Percentage
80%
71%
70%
60%
50%
54%
46%
52%
48%
46%
40%
31%
26%
30%
20%
10%
22%
15%
9%
0%
4%
0%
0%
Cook Islands
Kiribati
Case withdrawn
Samoa
Country
Case convicted
33
Tonga
Unknown
Vanuatu
The point of attrition (before filed with court or after filed with court) for the cases that were
withdrawn is presented in Table 14. In the Cook Islands, 84% of these cases were
withdrawn before they were filed with the court (n=21). Of these 21 cases, the decision not
to prosecute was made mid-investigation, which is the point in the police investigation when
the initial evidence has been gathered and the suspect and charges have been identified.
Three cases in the Cook Islands were discontinued after they were filed at court and all of
these cases were discontinued at court (12%).
The majority of withdrawn cases in Kiribati were also discontinued before the case was filed
with the court (n=36, 67%). Twenty-three of these cases were withdrawn mid-investigation
(64%) and the other 13 cases (36%) were discontinued late in the investigation, which is the
point in the investigation when charges have been laid and any additional evidence has
been gathered. All of the remaining 18 cases (33%) were withdrawn after they were filed
with the court and all of these were withdrawn in the courtroom.
Of the withdrawn cases in Tonga, five (36%) cases were withdrawn before they were filed
with the court and eight were discontinued after they had been filed with court (57%). Of the
cases that were discontinued before they were filed with court, three (21%) were dropped
mid-investigation and the remaining two (14%) were dropped late in the investigation stage.
In Vanuatu the majority of cases were withdrawn before they were filed with the court (n=15,
83%) and three cases were discontinued after they were filed with the court. Of the 15
cases that were dropped before they were filed with court all were withdrawn midinvestigation.
Lastly, as all of the files analysed in Samoa were referred for trial the 15 cases that were
withdrawn were done so in court.
Individuals responsible for the withdrawal of the domestic violence cases, across each
nation, are presented in Figure 2. In the majority of cases, in Kiribati (n=35, 65%), Samoa
(n=14, 93%), Tonga (n=9, 64%) and Vanuatu (n=10, 56%), the victim withdrew the case.
The exception was the Cook Islands where only a small number of withdrawals were traced
to the victim (n=4, 16%).
In the Cook Islands the police were responsible for 64% of case withdrawals (n=16), in
Kiribati this figure was 4% (n=2), in Tonga 14% (n=2) and in Vanuatu 28% (n=5).15 The
prosecutor was responsible for the withdrawal of 16% of withdrawn cases in the Cook
Islands (n=4), 26% of the cases in Kiribati (n=14) and 11% of the cases in Vanuatu (n=2).
The individual responsible for the withdrawal of one case in the Cook Islands (4%) and
Vanuatu (6%) could not be discerned from details contained in the file.
A visual summary of the case file attrition for each nation is available in Appendix 4.
15
All the files located in Samoa were cases in that had been heard in court, thus the police withdrew
no cases.
34
Table 14: Point of Attrition and Who Withdrew the Case Across Five Nations
Participating country
Variable
Cook Islands
Kiribati
Samoa
Tonga
Vanuatu
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Dropped before case filed
with court
21
84%
36
67%
0
0%
5
36%
15
83%
Discontinued after filed with
court
3
12%
18
33%
15
100%
8
57%
3
17%
Unknown
1
4%
0
0%
0
0%
1
7%
0
0%
Victim
4
16%
35
65%
14
93%
9
64%
10
56%
Police
16
64%
2
4%
0
0%
2
14%
5
28%
Prosecutor
4
16%
14
26%
0
0%
0
0%
2
11%
Judge / Magistrate
0
0%
3
6%
1
7%
3
21%
0
0%
Other judicial officer
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
6%
When was the case withdrawn?
Who withdrew the case?
Unknown
1
4%
0
Note: Some percentages have been rounded and may not equal 100%.
35
Figure 2: The Individual Responsible for the Case Withdrawal Across the Five Nations
100%
93%
90%
80%
Percentage
70%
65%
64%
60%
64%
56%
50%
40%
28%
30%
26%
21%
20%
16%
14%
10%
16%
11%
6% 7%
4%
0%
0% 0%
0%
6%
4%
0% 0%
0% 0% 0%
0%
0% 0% 0%
0%
Victim
Police
Prosecutor
Judge
Other judicial officer
Individual
Cook Islands
Kiribati
Samoa
36
Tonga
Vanuatu
Unknown
9 Operational considerations
Case file management process
As an outcome of the case file analysis conducted across the five Pacific nations a mapping
of the case file process was undertaken and the case file process for each nation is
presented in Appendix 4.
There were many difficulties sourcing domestic violence case files from 2012 for this study in
each nation. Although each nation has a process, it is generally not followed and there are
weaknesses at each point of the process and files often do not make it to the end point to be
filed in filing rooms. While this study solely focused on domestic violence cases, from what
was observed, it is assumed that problems with the case file process exists for all criminal
cases the police deal with.
Across all the nations the ability to appropriately and securely file closed cases is greatly
hampered as there is often no purpose built facilities or resources available to store closed
files. The facilities that all nations have are currently inadequate and there is no clean and
secure area for files to be kept. The problem with the filing systems is an historical issue
and much work is needed (ideally conducted by professional file management expert) to
ensure that the all police files are appropriately organised in order that they may be located.
General observations
Although not an aim of this project, as an outcome of the domestic violence case file
analysis, a few general observations were made regarding the police investigation and
content of the files. The following observations are similar across the five nations:

the infrequent inclusion of the file copy of the Domestic Violence Report form which is
used with CMIS data entry;

the brevity of the formal statements taken by police;

a lack of forensic evidence included in case files, photographs of injuries and the scene
and sketches of the scene (it should be noted that Kiribati do not have any forensic
equipment or cameras available); and,

the numerous gaps in the completion of information or information missing from files.
With specific reference to Vanuatu, the length of time that victims’ have to wait from the time
of reporting to police action, or eventual withdrawal by victim, was lengthy. In some cases,
victims withdrew their complaints more than a year after reporting with no action.
Recommendations
The continued implementation of PPDVP across all nations would be strengthened through
the following:
1.
the five Pacific Police forces develop a clear understanding of, and adherence to, case
file management best practice;
2.
further training and supervisory programmes to ensure that best practice is
consistently followed when investigating domestic violence cases;
3.
formalise and implement case withdrawal protocols;
37
4.
the implementation of a system in which all domestic violence cases are returned to
the Domestic Violence Team / Unit for completion and entry into CMIS / other
databases; and,
5.
the development of guidelines to support complainant withdrawal petitions at court.
38
10 References
Kelly, L., Lovett, J., & Regan, L, (2005), A Gap or a Chasm? Attrition in Reported Rape
Cases, Home Office Research Study 293. London: Home Office.
LCWRI. (2012) Staying Alive: 5th Monitoring & Evaluation 2012 on the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. New Delhi: LCWRI.
Lievore, D. (2004). Prosecutorial Decisions in Adult Sexual Assault Cases: An Australian
Study. Canberra: Office of the Status of Women.
Lovett, J., & Kelly, L. (2009). Different systems, similar outcomes? Tracking attrition in
reported rape cases across Europe. London: London Metropolitan University.
Ministry of Justice. (2014). Probation Service. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov.ck/other-services/probation
Secretariat of the Pacific. (2012). Kiribati 2010 census. Volume 2, Analytical report.
Retrieved from http://www.mfed.gov.ki/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Kiribati-2010-CensusReport_VOL2.pdf
Vanuatu Criminal Procedure Code 1977. Retrieved from https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihlnat.nsf/0/9c42a0c009104b66c12576d3002b435f/$FILE/Kiribati%20%20Criminal%20Procedure%20Code%201977.pdf
39
11 Appendix 1: Proposed Coding Frame
The following proposed coding frame has been informed by Lovett and Kelly (2009) and Lievore (2004) frameworks. It provides an example of
possible data collection variables only and could potentially change following the scoping exercises in the three remaining nations. A number of
amendments were made to the original coding framework. The following variables were removed from the frame: a) who the offence was initially
reported to (Church minister, friend, NGO), and b) the use of threats during the offence.
Gender
Gender
Offence & Initial
proceedings
Number of victims
Age
Age
Number of perpetrators
Relationship status
Relationship status
Offence type
Suspect interviewed
Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Victim injury
Suspect charged
Relationship to victim
Weapon use
Forensic evidence
Location of incident
Medical evidence
Time taken to report offence
Charges laid
Victim
Perpetrator
Investigation, Prosecution
Processes, Case Outcome
Victim interviewed
Referred for trial
Most serious final charge (if
less serious why?)
Withdrawn
Who initiated withdraw and
why
Case outcome – acquittal,
conviction
40
Attrition Point
When (early investigation, mid
investigation, end of investigation, precourt trial, court trial)
Who withdrawn (victim, police,
prosecutor, other judicial official, judge)
Why?
12 Appendix 2: Data collection form
41
Country:
Number:
VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS
1.
Age (years at time of offence)
2.
Gender
□ Male
□ Female
□ Unknown / information Unknown
3.
Relationship status (at time of offence)
□ Single
□ Married
□ Defacto relationship
□ Widowed
□ Separated
□ Divorced
□ Unknown / information Unknown
4.
Ethnicity:
5.
Employment status (at time of offence)
□ Employed
□ Unemployed
□ Student
□ Unknown / information Unknown
6.
Substance use at time of offence?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Unknown / information Unknown
7.
Type of substance:
□ Alcohol
□ Drugs
□ Both alcohol and drugs
□ Unknown / information Unknown
SUSPECT / OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS
8.
Age (years at time of offence)
9.
Gender
□ Male
□ Female
□ Unknown / information Unknown
42
10.
Relationship status (at time of offence)
□ Single
□ Married
□ Defacto relationship
□ Widowed
□ Separated
□ Divorced
□ Unknown / information Unknown
11.
Ethnicity:
12.
Employment status (at time of offence)
□ Employed
□ Unemployed
□ Student
□ Unknown / information Unknown
13.
Substance use at time of offence?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Unknown / information Unknown
14.
Type of substance:
□ Alcohol
□ Drugs
□ Both alcohol and drugs
□ Unknown / information Unknown
15.
Other prior offences:
□ None
□ Prior domestic violence offence
□ Prior sexual offence
□ Prior other violent offence
□ Prior other
□ Prior Unknown
□ Unknown / information Unknown
43
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND SUSPECT / OFFENDER
16.
The suspect / offender was the victim’s:
□ Current partner: persons in an intimate relationship, including boyfriend/girlfriend, legal or de facto
spouse, whether cohabiting or not..
□ Former partner: persons who were previously in an intimate relationship, which has since ended.
□ Family: any person identified as a family member, covering various types of kinship networks.
□ Other known: any other person known to the victim, including friends, work colleagues,
acquaintances, neighbours, etc.
Relationship to victim:
□ Unknown / information Unknown
CASE CHARACTERISTICS
17.
Number of victims:
18.
Number of suspects / offenders:
19.
Victim injured?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Unknown / information Unknown
20.
Weapon/s used?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Unknown / information Unknown
21.
Type of incident
□ Non-physical
□ Physical
□ Sexual
□ Unknown / information Unknown
22.
List type of weapon:
23.
Location of incident
□ Home
□ Work
□ Unknown / information Unknown
□ Other:
24.
Time taken to report offence
□ At time of offence
□ Within 3 hours
□ 4 – 24 hours
44
□ 2 – 7 days
□ 8 days and over
□ Unknown / information Unknown
POLICE INVESTIGATION AND CHARGES
25.
Victim interviewed?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Unknown / information Unknown
26.
Suspect / offender interviewed?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Unknown / information Unknown
27.
Forensic scene examination conducted?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Unknown / information Unknown
28.
Witnesses interviewed?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Unknown / information Unknown
29.
Any other additional investigation and/or additional evidence:
30.
Suspect / offender arrested
□ Yes
□ No
□ Unknown / information Unknown
31.
Were charges laid?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Unknown / information Unknown
32.
If yes, what charges were laid:
33.
If no, why were charges not laid:
34.
Referred for trial?
□ Yes
□ No
45
□ Unknown / information Unknown
35.
Most serious final charge (if less serious why?)
36.
From the time the offence was reported, how long did it take to file the case with the
court?
COURT PROCEEDINGS
37.
38.
39.
How long did it take for the court to hear the case from time case was filed?
What level of court was case heard in?
Outcome for major charge:
□ Acquitted/not guilty
□ Found guilty
□ Pleaded guilty
□ Dismissed
□ No plea
□ Withdrawn
□ Unknown / information Unknown
40.
Most serious final offence:
41.
Punishment for offences:
CASE SUMMARY AND OUTCOME
Case withdrawal - This variable encompasses whether the case proceeded to trial or was withdrawn
and, if withdrawn, at what stage of the proceedings this occurred. Due to procedural differences across
the jurisdictions, discontinuance was coded as either prior to or after an indictment was filed.
42.
What action was taken?
□ Protection order/restraining order
□ Charges pressed and proceeded to court
□ Referred to Women’s Centre/Victim Support
□ Unknown / information Unknown
□ Other:
43.
Was the case withdrawn?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Unknown / information Unknown
44.
When in the proceedings was the case withdrawn?
□ Dropped before case was filed with court
46
□ Discontinued after case was filed with court
□ Unknown / information Unknown
45.
If dropped before charges were filed with court, when in the investigation was the case
withdrawn?
□ Early-investigation
□ mid-investigation
□ End of investigation
□ Unknown / information Unknown
46.
Who withdrew the case?
□ Victim
□ Police
□ Prosecutor
□ Other judicial officer
□ Judge
□ Unknown / information Unknown
47.
Reason why charges were withdrawn (eg.victim: withdrawal, retraction or not completing
process by victim; Prosecution/magistrate: no reasonable prospects of conviction.)
48.
Please tick if any of the below occurred during the police or court proceedings
□ Charge negotiation
□ No charge negotiation
□ Reduced number of charges
□ Tried for lesser offence
□ Unknown / information Unknown
Details:
47
13 Appendix 3: Summary of attrition in the five nations
48
Cook Islands
55 cases
Was the case
withdrawn?
Yes
n=27
No
n=25
When was the case
withdrawn?
Before filed with court:
21
After filed with court: 2
At court: 3
Unknown: 1
Who withdrew
the case?
Victim: 4
Police: 16
Prosecutor: 4
Magistrate: 2
Unknown: 1
Unknown
n=3
Proceeeded to
sentencing
Where was the
case heard?
High Court: 25
Pleaded guilty
n= 21
Pleaded not guilty
n=2
Outcome
1. Found guilty and
convicted and
sentenced
2.Discharged
without conviction
Convicted
Yes
n=21
No
n=0
49
Unknown
n=3
Kiribati
100 cases
Was the case
withdrawn?
Yes
n=54
No
n=15
When was the case
withdrawn?
Before filed with court:
36
After filed with court: 7
At court: 11
Proceeeded to
sentencing
Who withdrew the
case?
Victim: 35
Police: 2
Prosecutor: 14
Judge: 3
Unknown
n=31
Where was the case
heard?
Magistrate's Court: 15
Pleaded guilty
n= 15
Convicted
Yes
n=13
No
n=2
50
Pleaded not guilty
n=0
Samoa
31 cases
Was the case
withdrawn?
Yes
n=15
When was the case
withdrawn?
After filed with court: 1
At court: 14
Who withdrew the
case?
Victim: 14
Judge: 1
No
n=16
Proceeeded to
sentencing
Where was the case
heard?
F.F. Court: 3
District Court: 8
Supreme Court: 5
Pleaded guilty
n= 15
Convicted
Yes
n=14
No
n=1
51
Pleaded not guilty
n=1
Outcome
Found guilty and
convicted and
sentenced
Tonga
55 cases
Was the case
withdrawn?
Yes
n=14
No
n=39
When was the case
withdrawn?
Before filed with court: 5
After filed with court: 4
At court: 4
Unknown: 1
Proceeeded to
sentencing
Who withdrew the
case?
Victim: 9
Police: 2
Judge / Magistrate: 3
Unknown
n=2
Where was the case
heard?
Magistrate's Court: 39
Pleaded guilty
n= 39
Convicted
Yes
n=39
No
n=0
52
Pleaded not guilty
n=0
Vanuatu
23 cases
Was the case
withdrawn?
Yes
n=18
When was the case
withdrawn?
Before filed with court:
15
After filed with court: 3
Who withdrew the
case?
Victim: 10
Police: 5
Prosecutor: 2
Unknown: 1
No
n=5
Proceeeded to
sentencing
Where was the case
heard?
Magistrate's Court: 3
Supreme Court: 2
Pleaded guilty
n= 5
Convicted
Yes
n=5
No
n=0
53
Pleaded not guilty
n=0
14 Appendix 4: Mapping of case file process in the five
nations
54
Cook Islands case file process
Offence reported to
police
Police Comms creates
file
National Command
and Coordination
Centre Notified
General Duties
assigned or Serious
Crime Unit in the case
of serious offences
Invesigation and
possible arrest
Charges laid
Charges not laid
OIC finalise file,
Divison Commander
signs-off, passed to
Police Prosecutions
OIC finalises file,
alternative action
possibleand sign-off
from Divisional
Commander
Police prosecution
prepares file for court
Completed file sent to
file room at station
Decision to not
prosecute
Matter procedes to
court
OIC finalises file,
alternative action
possible and sign-off
from superior
Matter heard by court
Completed file sent
back to OIC to file at
station
Complete file sent
back to OIC to be filed
in station
55
Kiribati case file process
Offence
reported to
police
Case file created
at station and
recorded in DV
register/Crime
Report created
and added to
database
Investigation
by police at
station
Investigation
by CID at HQ
in serious
cases
Arrest in
serious cases
Arrest possible
Charges laid
by CID
Submitted to OCS
officer for approval to
charge and prosecute
Charges laid
No charges
laid
Submitted to
Police
Prosecutor
Decision to
prosecute
Matter heard
in Magistrate's
Court
Closed file at
Magistrates DV
Register /
Database updated
Closed file at
CID, DV
Register /
Database
updated
DV Register
Updated/
Database
Updated
Closed filed at
Police Station,
DV Register /
Database
updated
DV Register
Updated/
Database
Updated
No charges
laid
Submitted to
AG Office for
Prosecution
Matter heard
in High Court
Closed file at High
Court
DV Register /
Database
Updated
Decision to not
prosecute
Closed file at
Police Station, DV
Register /
Database
updated
56
Samoa case file process
Case file created
at station and
each of the
below gets a
copy of crime
report: Victim;
Case file; DV /
Intel Database;
Officer in
charge; Crime
Report Book
Offence
reported to
police
Assigned to investigating
officer and details manually
entered into CID spreadsheet
Investigation
and arrest
No charges laid
OIC finalises file
and sign-off
from superior
Completed file
sent to file room
at station
Charges laid
File progresses to
police prosecution
if penalty less than
5 years
Decision to
prosecute
Matter heard in
Magistrate's
Court
File progresses to
AG Office if penalty 5
years plus
Decision to not
prosecute
Completed file
sent to Forensics
for filing
Completed file
sent to Forensics
for filing
Decision to not
prosecute
Complete file
sent to file room
at station
Decision to
prosecute
Matter heard in
Supreme Court
Completed file sent to
Forensics for filing
57
Tonga case file process
Offence
reported to
police
Case file created
at station and
recorded in
movement
register and
progresses to CIU
CIU enter into
CIU register
Allocated to
Inspector in
charge of People
cases
Allocated to
police
investigator
(OIC) for three
months
Arrest made in
serious cases
Diary notes
completed and
OIC finalises
case
No charges
laid
Charges laid
OIC finalises
file and signoff from DC
File progresses
to prosecution
Completed file
sent to file
room at station
Matter
proceeds to
court
Decision not to
prosecute
Matter heard
in court
Completed file
sent to file
room at station
58
Completed file
sent to file
room at station
Vanuatu case file process
Offence
reported to
police
Case file created at
station and recorded in
Occurance book and DV
register
Application
for FPO
Victim and
suspect
statement
taken
Application to
Magistrate's
Court and
acceptance
Closed file
sent back to
DVSO Unit and
filed in RO
Investigation
by OIC
Victim support referred to NGO
Arrest in
serious cases
Closed case
filed in DVSO
Unit
Charges
laid
Submitted to
State
Prosecutor
Decision to
prosecute
Matter heard in
Magistrate's
Court
Closed file sent
to Public
Prosecution
office for filing
Decision to not
prosecute
File to OIC for
finalisation
Charges not
laid
Submitted to
Public Prosecutor
in serious cases
File finalised
by OIC
Decision to not
prosecute
Decision to
prosecute
Closed file
sent to OIC
and filed in
RO
Matter heard in
Supreme Court
Closed file sent
back to OIC
and filed in RO
59
Closed case
filed in RO
Closed file sent
to Public
Prosecutions
for filing